Background to this inspection
Updated
8 September 2017
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 17 July 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
As part of the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked to see if statutory notifications had been sent by the provider. A statutory notification contains information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. We looked at information contained in the provider’s Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR is a document the provider completes in advance of an inspection to share information about the service. They can advise us of areas of good practice and outline improvements needed within their service. We sought information and views from the local authority. We also reviewed information that had been sent to us by the public. We used this information to help us plan our inspection.
During the inspection we spoke with six people who used the service. We spoke with the registered manager, and four members of care staff. To help us understand the experiences of people living at the service, we carried out observations regarding the quality of care people received. We reviewed records relating to two people’s care and medicines. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the service; including recruitment records, complaints and quality assurance records.
Updated
8 September 2017
This inspection took place on 18 July 2017 and was unannounced. At the last inspection the provider was meeting the regulations we inspected although we identified improvements were needed under the key questions of ‘safe’, ‘effective’ and ‘well-led’. At this inspection we found most of these improvements had been made although some improvements were still needed to record keeping and quality assurance processes.
51-53 Brierley Lane is a residential home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 adults or older people with learning disabilities and physical disabilities. Some people living at the service are currently living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 10 people living at the service.
A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Quality assurance systems did not always identify some areas for improvement within the service. Records were not always in place, up to date and accurate around people’s care needs and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People were cared for by a staff team who felt supported and were committed to their roles. People’s views about the service they received were proactively sought and improvements made where required.
People were supported by a staff team who understood how to protect them from potential abuse. People were protected from risks such as accident and injury. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely for their roles. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.
People were cared for by a staff team who had the skills required to support them effectively. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People received sufficient amounts of food and drink. People were supported to maintain their day to day health.
People were supported by care staff who were kind and caring towards them. People’s dignity was protected. They were supported to make choices and to maintain their independence.
People received care and support that met their needs and preferences. People were involved in making decisions about their care they received and their needs were regularly reviewed. People were supported to access leisure opportunities and to pursue personal interests.
People’s feedback about the service was sought. Any concerns or complaints were addressed appropriately and improvements made where necessary.